Curiouser and Curiouser (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DaddySatyr -> Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 5:40:38 AM)


Some time ago, I was chided by a poster for suggesting that a thread was headed for a treatise on "Thought Control".

It turned out that I was correct. That poster apologized to me later in thread.

I found an article in my yahoo feed, today that echoes what I have been saying about "Thought Crimes" for some time; particularly:

quote:



What comes to mind when I think of the genesis for this growing trend of government to control Americans’ speech, and by extension, thoughts, is when the notion of hate crime was brought into our criminal prosecution system — as if acts of violence that are committed because of racial divides deserve a different category of ‘extra-special bad









Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?



Tkman117 -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 5:48:42 AM)

Canada has some pretty strict hate laws but it has in no way been abused. It doesn't take a judge to be able to tell what a hate crime is, it's pretty obvious and as a result it's difficult to abuse it.



TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 6:19:11 AM)

Damn. Now here is a topic that could make me late for work, or skip it altogether, but I haven't got a sick day to spare right now.

I completely agree with the basic premise of the article, and I've opposed the notion of hate crimes since I first heard of them for exactly this reason.

It won't be too much trouble to keep the thread warm for me, I hope.



DomKen -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 6:48:57 AM)

Another case of one right winger making shit up and other right winger running with it.
This line from the First Lady's speech is supposed to be the basis for this whole thing
quote:

“[O]ur laws may no longer separate us based on our skin color, but nothing in the Constitution says we have to eat together in the lunchroom, or live together in the same neighborhoods,” she said. “There’s no court case against believing in stereotypes or thinking that certain kinds of hateful jokes or comments are funny.”

She wasn't telling the graduates to monitor anyone but was encouraging them to be accepting of others. It was a graduation speech commemorating the anniversary of Brown v Board in Topeka after all.



thompsonx -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 7:04:05 AM)


[ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Damn. Now here is a topic that could make me late for work, or skip it altogether, but I haven't got a sick day to spare right now.

I completely agree with the basic premise of the article, and I've opposed the notion of hate crimes since I first heard of them for exactly this reason.


Why???There is no legal proscription against you expressing your vulgar hate filled opinions just the apbrobation of sane people.



TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 7:06:49 AM)

And here is a lovely representative of the authoritarian left to drag the real topic off into the weeds.

Orwell named that one, too. Squealer.

I'll be back.



mnottertail -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 7:26:17 AM)

There is no real topic, The Washington Times is an organ of Sun Myung Moons divine vision, they have no capability to recognize thought. And it is further excerpted from the Daily Caller.

No substance, no veracity and pretty much nothing at all except macabre hallucinations.

Nothing like the propaganda immersed right to drag out asswipe and treat it as if it is deserving of honest consideration.



DomKen -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 8:09:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

And here is a lovely representative of the authoritarian left to drag the real topic off into the weeds.

Orwell named that one, too. Squealer.

I'll be back.

No. I went and looked at the source article and found it to be full of shit. I dare you to go look and see for your self. here is a link to help.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/19/michelle-obama-to-high-school-grads-monitor-your-parents-for-thoughtcrime/



Zonie63 -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 8:16:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Some time ago, I was chided by a poster for suggesting that a thread was headed for a treatise on "Thought Control".

It turned out that I was correct. That poster apologized to me later in thread.

I found an article in my yahoo feed, today that echoes what I have been saying about "Thought Crimes" for some time; particularly:

quote:



What comes to mind when I think of the genesis for this growing trend of government to control Americans’ speech, and by extension, thoughts, is when the notion of hate crime was brought into our criminal prosecution system — as if acts of violence that are committed because of racial divides deserve a different category of ‘extra-special bad




I can't say how much actual "thought control" there is in this country. Sometimes, I think it might come in form of politicians and media pundits deciding what is worthwhile to discuss in public, without caring too much about where a person actually stands on it.

As for the notion of hate crimes, while there may be something flawed about the concept, I honestly don't believe that it's any attempt at "thought control." More often than not, I see hate crime legislation introduced in order to make a politically expedient response to something horrifying that may have just happened. Like if there's some heinous murder or other violent attack motivated by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc., that will make the national news, and that's usually when the politicians and pundits start talking about the need for stronger hate crime legislation. It seems that it's more motivated by the desire to reassure an outraged and frightened public that they're "on the job."

If it was designed for the purpose of thought control, then it doesn't seem to be working anyway.

As for the comparisons to Orwell, one thing I remember from 1984 is that there was this belief that "thought crime" was some kind of insidious disease that even the thought criminal may not be aware of. It was considered a form of mental illness that had to be cured at the Ministry of Love.



tj444 -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 8:16:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Some time ago, I was chided by a poster for suggesting that a thread was headed for a treatise on "Thought Control".

It turned out that I was correct. That poster apologized to me later in thread.

I found an article in my yahoo feed, today that echoes what I have been saying about "Thought Crimes" for some time; particularly:

quote:



What comes to mind when I think of the genesis for this growing trend of government to control Americans’ speech, and by extension, thoughts, is when the notion of hate crime was brought into our criminal prosecution system — as if acts of violence that are committed because of racial divides deserve a different category of ‘extra-special bad






what do you think "unlimited detention" is? anyone now can be called a "terrorist".. ask OWS about that..



dcnovice -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 8:37:02 AM)

FR

When time permits, I'm a primary source sort of guy, so here are a pair of resources:

Video of the First Lady's Speech

Transcript

To me, the speech seems the very opposite of thought control. Mrs. Obama vigorously encourages the graduates to take part in the hard, crucial conversations of our society. And she spurs them to find the courage to confront bigotry when they encounter it.

No matter what you do, the point is to never be afraid to talk about these issues, particularly the issue of race, because even today, we still struggle to do that. This issue is so sensitive, so complicated, so bound up with a painful history.

And we need your generation to help us break through — we need all of you to ask the hard questions and have the honest conversations because that is the only way we will heal the wounds of the past and move forward to a better future.

* * *


Maybe that starts in your own family, when Grandpa tells that awkward joke at Thanksgiving or your aunt says something about “those people,” and you politely inform them that they’re talking about your friends.


It also bears noting, given the persistent canard that liberals' solution to everything is government, that the First Lady specifically said,

Our laws may no longer separate us based on our skin color, but there’s nothing in our Constitution that says we have to eat together in the lunchroom or live together in the same neighborhoods.

There’s no court case against believing in stereotypes or thinking that certain kinds of hateful jokes or comments are funny.

So the answers to many of our challenges today can’t necessarily be found in our laws — these changes also need to take place in our hearts and in our minds.


Turning this call for robust speech into an example of Orwellianism strikes me as acute ODS.



vincentML -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 8:53:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Some time ago, I was chided by a poster for suggesting that a thread was headed for a treatise on "Thought Control".

It turned out that I was correct. That poster apologized to me later in thread.

I found an article in my yahoo feed, today that echoes what I have been saying about "Thought Crimes" for some time; particularly:

quote:



What comes to mind when I think of the genesis for this growing trend of government to control Americans’ speech, and by extension, thoughts, is when the notion of hate crime was brought into our criminal prosecution system — as if acts of violence that are committed because of racial divides deserve a different category of ‘extra-special bad



Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?

But historically they have been a category of 'extra-special bad.' How can we ignore all the crimes committed against blacks and gays? America's history of these grotesque acts cries out for a special category.



MrRodgers -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 11:56:09 AM)

One could say almost all crimes...are hate crimes. I hate being poor, I hate not being hi, I hate not having that BMW.



joether -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 12:27:01 PM)

I'm always amused when the right bitches about thought control. They are totally against the Affordable Care Act, never having READ the whole document, even after it was law; but accepting what the right wing disinformation machine the GOP/TP publishes every day. Its really the creation of a logistics engine meant to make insurance polices more uniformed and easier to understand by tens of millions of Americans. Who created the idea of 'Death Panels'? The document makes no mention of death panels directly or indirectly.

How about the Theory of Climate Change? Mountains of regularly tested evidence exist by hundreds of thousands of scientists in a multitude of scientific disciplines that explain the concept. Yet, ring wingers cling to any tidbit of worthless crap as justification the whole thing is a scam; all supplied by the same rightwing misinformation machine.

Or the misinformation machine by the rightwing that stated Mr. Romney was going to win the 2012 Presidential Election by a landslide in both the vote and the electoral college. Both of those were proved to be falsehoods even before the vote!

How about the Theory of Evolution? That Creationist battle scientists over the wrong scientific theory. The Theory of Evolution does not explain how Planet Earth was formed, nor how life may have started. That's covered under the Theory of Abiogenesis! But the rightwing media will never make that connection, because it would be stating their idiots not to know the difference.

Or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009? The one the rightwing media blitz on as 'a spending bill that will not help the nation'? Or that it was spending 'a trillion dollars this year'? Conservatives ate up all those lies without ever sitting down and READING THE BILL. That bill did much to keep this nation from sliding into a second Great Depression. Spending nearly $500 million on the 26 or so industries in America to stabilize the downward spiral. And doing so in the following year. Many economists pointed out that in 2010, a further $500 million being spent on those industries would have helped the nation out of the recession. And who was against the United States of America getting out of a recession....just before....the mid-term elections? The rightwing media!

How about this latest issue of the station chief being 'outed' by someone in the White House? The rightwing media is trying to have us all believe that one of President Obama's job duties is to hand out distribution lists to reporters.

'Thought Control' is used on 'The Low Information Voter' rather than those that think, consider, ponder, evaluate, and study the information given to them. That this 'low information voter' keeps voting Republican/Tea Party should not surprise anyone with a brain and an education. People voted for President Obama in both elections because of numerous reasons. The Low Information Voters were told what to think and who to vote for in the elections. Who in their right mind, intelligence, and wisdom, would desire Sarah Palin one step away from the President's seat?



vincentML -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 12:53:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

One could say almost all crimes...are hate crimes. I hate being poor, I hate not being hi, I hate not having that BMW.

You hate being poor? You hate not being high? You hate not having a BMW? Those are all crimes of self-hatred. Crimes directed at your own condition. Crimes of envy and selfishness. Your burdens.

Society has always distinguished between categories of crime. It has learned to do so through experience (history) It is a greater crime to take a man's life than to take his wallet. It is a greater crime to take a man's life deliberately than to take it through carelessness. Of late, because of our history, because of the shame of our culture, we have decided through public opinion and through legislative process it is a greater crime to lynch a person because of his or her skin color, because of religious beliefs, or because of sexual preference than to slay him/her for financial profit. It is not a question of thought control. The OP's thesis is sophomoric. It is a question of justice evaluating motivation for crimes as we always have done. We have simply added new categories that arose out of the misdeeds of night riders and lynch mobs. Just one more step toward a civil society.



Moderator3 -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 1:02:56 PM)

Just a reminder: Per guidelines speaking about drug use or being under the influence is not allowed.

Work with me please.

Edit for clarity per a members email to me, this should read: Speaking about personally using drugs. Thank you!



thompsonx -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 1:36:13 PM)

You hate being poor? You hate not being high? You hate not having a BMW? Those are all crimes of self-hatred.

How do you come by this opinion?



Crimes directed at your own condition.

Actually more of a lack of control of ones own condition.


Crimes of envy and selfishness.

For one to be aware of hunger or cold and seek their remedy does not strike me as rising to a crime of envy....selfishness is not a crime stingy is.

Your burdens.

Surely yes but hardly self imposed.



TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 6:25:28 PM)

FR

Thanks for the transcript link, DC. I figured I'd get to it at lunch, but Mondays are a real pain in the ass when they fall on a Tuesday, and sometimes I'm too good at my job for my own good.

Now it was a very nice little speech, and I'm sure it will be a fond memory for all those high school graduates (at least the ones that don't get shot in the next few years), but yeah, the First Lady was encouraging kids to jump in and tell their older family member what they should and shouldn't say. There was also this fucking hilariously hypocritical quote:

quote:

And that’s really my challenge to all of you today — when you encounter folks who still hold the old prejudices because they’ve only been around folks like themselves, when you meet folks who think they know all the answers because they’ve never heard any other viewpoints, it is up to you to help them see things differently.


Seriously? Did a liberal really say that? With a straight face?

But that isn't the topic here, nor is the blatantly dishonest call for "honest" conversation about racial issues.

Hate crime becomes thought crime. These things don't happen overnight, but we are on the slope.



DomKen -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 6:54:02 PM)

Watch that backpedal go.



dcnovice -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/27/2014 7:11:53 PM)

quote:

I'm sure it will be a fond memory for all those high school graduates (at least the ones that don't get shot in the next few years),

Are these graduates particularly likely to be shot? I don't know Topeka at all.


quote:

the First Lady was encouraging kids to jump in and tell their older family member what they should and shouldn't say.

What course of action would you advise to almost-adults when they encounter bigotry in the guise of dinner conversation?


quote:

Seriously? Did a liberal really say that? With a straight face?

Now Rich, we both know that plenty of non-liberals live in their own echo chambers.


quote:

But that isn't the topic here,

Are you telling me what I should and shouldn't say? [;)]

But seriously, the OP was rooted in an op-ed piece that offered a wildly distorted, to put it charitably, take on what the First Lady said. Bringing her actual words into the discussion is totally on topic.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.1074219